Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tactical Nuclear Warfare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lionhearti View Post
    What i don't get is why do the soviets want a war torn devastated Europe that is going to have partisan problems that make the Soviet resistance look like peanuts
    They didn't, as it turned out,

    they were told *we* were out to get *them*, neither side actually wanted to invade the other, both were convinced the other side did however.
    Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Soviet Marshal V. D. Sokolovski in Magazine Military Strategy 1962 View Post
      Exercise Buria: A Warsaw Pact force numbering over one million men, with more than 350 SCUD and FROG launchers, 1,500 fighter planes, and 1,000 bombers and fighter-bombers. Of these aircraft, 100 were nuclear-capable. The NATO force had 682,000 troops when combat commenced, including 300 nuclear-capable artillery pieces and 334 missile launchers (Honest Johns, Lacrosses, Corporal/ Sergeants, and Redstones); air forces of 1,314 fighters, 1,550 bombers, and fighter-bombers (800 nuclear-capable, with 36 air-launched nuclear cruise missiles). It assumed that more than 2,200 nuclear weapons would be employed, 1,000 by the Soviets, 1,200 by NATO, though total mega tonnage would be about the same. Here quoted at length is Matthias Uhl's depiction of the unfolding campaign's horrendous results:

      In their first "strategic" nuclear strike, Warsaw Pact forces would attack a total of 1,200 stationary NATO targets (422 in West Germany) within 30 minutes with approximately 400 nuclear attacks on mobile targets such as troop concentrations or nuclear weapons. The political and military leadership of the Federal Republic of Germany would be paralyzed for 8 to 10 days. 70% of TNW and 90% of the radar stations and airfields in West Germany would be immediately destroyed. Nuclear weapons would kill or incapacitate 40% of the troops they were used against. Losses of weapons and equipment would be up to 60%. NATO would detonate 68 surface explosions of nuclear weapons behind Warsaw Pact lines to interdict strategic reserves. Overall, 140,000 km2 would suffer radiation of at least 100 Roentgens per hour. Enormous numbers of dead, injured and radiation diseased civilians would confront military and civilian medical services with insoluble problems. Nevertheless, after this decisive initial exchange, Warsaw Pact troops would storm on to Paris and reach Calais on the 10th day.
      I would like to be part of the advancing Soviet troops storming Paris and reaching Calais.

      That would be a wolderful day!
      Last edited by Nicolas; 14 Jan 13, 01:28.

      Comment


      • #18
        Good thing he added that last sentence or it might have sounded like a bad idea.

        Maybe his boss didn't like the first version.
        "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
          Maybe his boss didn't like the first version.
          I don't have a boss. That's why I changed the last sentence.

          Comment


          • #20
            Tactical nuclear weapons are rendered null by escalating the ladder. Any nuclear device is past the conventional threshhold, the taboo would be lost and you'd find your enemy and yourself using ever more powerful 'tactical' nuclear weapons, not just Davy Crockett mortars.
            ------
            'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

            If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

            Comment


            • #21
              Like I said, "Fight like Hell for three days then blow up the world".

              All "Red Storm Rising" and other novels were a bit of wishful thinking and fairy tales for the civilians and politicos. Anybody who went through the exercises or knew of the NATO plans knew that the battlefield would be an NBC enviroment from the start. There never was such thing as "Tactical Nuclear War".
              The Purist

              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                There never was such thing as "Tactical Nuclear War".
                Originally posted by Soviet Marshal V. D. Sokolovski in Magazine Military Strategy 1962
                … Exercise Buria: A Warsaw Pact force numbering over one million men, with more than 350 SCUD and FROG launchers, 1,500 fighter planes, and 1,000 bombers and fighter-bombers. Of these aircraft, 100 were nuclear-capable.
                Not tactical nuclear war, but tactical war not only with troops , but also with tactical nuclear weapons…. to drive the Yankees over Calais to the sea…

                Comment


                • #23
                  Conventional military strategists for the most part made very poor nuclear ones, hence the proliferation of men in suits with thick rimmed glasses in the 50s and 60s into the upper echelons of strategy making. They could see past the idea it was just another, bigger, bomb, and work out models and scenarios of escalation.

                  Edit: heh...just realised --- the chap in my Avatar, a bad example of the latter.
                  Last edited by Selous; 15 Jan 13, 06:43.
                  ------
                  'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' - Thomas Jefferson

                  If you have questions about the forum please check the FAQ/Rules

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Nuclear weapons are a complete non starter unless you're intention is to destroy the human race. They're only practical use is as a deterrent. In some respects they've probably prevented wars since ww2 but as a vialbe tactical weapon, forget it. Even in to the 1980's some Generals thoughts nuclear war was winnable. Apparently even Reagan thought they were nuts...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                      Nuclear weapons are a complete non starter unless you're intention is to destroy the human race. They're only practical use is as a deterrent...
                      And the moment you use them, deterrence has failed. Or has it?

                      Lets imagine you use one or two tac nukes on a battlefield or a secondary strategic target, as a demonstration of your resolve whilst holding back on any further strikes. Lets say for instance you have a pause and your counterforce, your city busters can't be hit, because even you don't know where they are, being deep under the ocean but you can get a message out to them to launch if neccessary within hours. Also they have sealed orders in the case of a decapitation strike and lose all contact with you or about to be sunk, which maybe : Fire your full target package immediately. All of these things should make the detterrence policy more robust, but not invincible.

                      But tac nukes arent designed to destroy the human race. They are designed to be used for a specific tactical gain. They fall outside of deterrence policy. Hence, I fear they will be used one day. Then the genie will be out of the bottle well and truly.

                      After all, nukes have been used twice operationally already, albeit in a strategic and geo-political way* and as I believe as a rather cynical live operational test.

                      *and to wave a big f*** off stick at the commies!
                      Last edited by Reggie Mental; 21 Jan 13, 14:55.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X